Full text of "ERIC ED468858: A University Lab School for the 21st Century: The Early Childhood Development Center."

See other formats

DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 468 858

PS 030 592

AUTHOR

TITLE

PUB DATE
NOTE

EDRS PRICE
DESCRIPTORS

IDENTIFIERS

Cassidy, Jack; Sanders, Jana

A University Lab School for the 21st Century: The Early
Childhood Development Center.

2002-04-00

19p.; In: "Early Childhood Literacy: Programs & Strategies To

Develop Cultural, Linguistic, Scientific and Healthcare
Literacy for Very Young Children & their Families, 2001
Yearbook"; see PS 030 591.

EDRS Price MF01/PC01 Plus Postage.

Academic Achievement; Bilingual Education; Child Development;
Child Development Centers; ^College School Cooperation;
Developmentally Appropriate Practices; Early Childhood
Education; ^Educational History; Educational Research;
Elementary School Curriculum; ^Laboratory Schools; Preschool
Curriculum; Program Descriptions; Teaching Methods; Young
Children

Corpus Christi Independent School District TX; Exemplary
Schools; Texas (Corpus Christi); *Texas A and M University
Corpus Christi; Texas Assessment of Academic Skills

ABSTRACT

This chapter is part of a book that recounts the year's work
at the Early Childhood Development Center (ECDC) at Texas A & M University-
Corpus Christi. Rather than an "elitist" laboratory school for the children
of university faculty, the ECDC is a collaboration between the Corpus Christi
Independent School District and the university with an enrollment
representative of Corpus Christi' s population. The chapter delineates the
rise and fall of university laboratory schools in the United States and then
describes the ECDC, including its facility, school population, faculty,
principal/director, dual-language curriculum, health center, counseling
center, training mission, and positive student results on the Texas
Assessment of Academic Skills (TAAS) . The chapter suggests that the ECDC
addresses some of the problems of older campus laboratory schools, and at the
same time, grapples with some of the major concerns of educators and
legislators in -the 21st century. (Contains 24 references.) (EV)

Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made
from the original document.

ED 468 858

CEDER Yearbook 2001

Chapter 1

A University Lab School for the 21 st Century:
The Early Childhood Development Center

Jack Cassidy
Jana Sanders

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Office of Educational Research and Improvement
EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATIC
^ CENTER (ERIC)

Jo This document has been reproduced as
' \ received from the person or organization
originating it.

□ Minor changes have been made to
improve reproduction quality.

• Points of view or opinions stated in this
document do not necessarily represent
official OERI position or policy.

PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE AND
DISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL HAS
BEEN GRANTED BY

TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES
INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)

2 2 BEST COPY AVAILABLE

CEDER Yearbook 2001

The Evolution of Laboratory Schools

Laboratory schools situated on university and college campuses
were long a staple of institutions that provided training for preservice
teachers. The concept was' simple. Bring PreK-12 students on campus,
provide them with an education, and at the same time provide
preservice teachers an opportunity to practice some of the methods
they were learning in their pedagogy classes. These campus lab
schools would also enable faculty and graduate students to experiment
with new educational ideas and methods and to conduct the research
needed to validate those ideas or methods. Furthermore, although
never acknowledged in their mission statements, these campus lab
schools often provided university faculty with a convenient place to
educate their own children. Children from the local community were
also invited to attend, but usually their parents would have to provide
transportation.

This chapter will delineate the rise and fall of the university
laboratory school in the United States and then describe a new
laboratory school, the Early Childhood Development Center on the
campus of Texas A&M University-Corpus Christi. This facility
addresses some of the problems of the older campus laboratory
schools, and at the same time, grapples with some of the major
concerns of educators and legislators in the 21 st century.

The Rise of Lab Schools & Child Development Centers

Laboratory schools have been part of the university milieu in
Europe and America for at least 200 years; some documents even date
their origins to the 1600s. As early as the 1820s, reports of normal
schools in the United States indicated that they were providing
teaching opportunities for their preservice teachers in controlled
teaching environments. Europe and America were not the only
continents to have laboratory schools. In Japan, laboratory schools
were and are called "attached schools." (Hayo, 1993).

From 1850 to 1950, laboratory schools thrived. An 1874 report
from the U.S. Commissioner of Education indicated that 47 of the
nation’s 67 state normal schools provided laboratory or training
schools in connection with their teacher education programs
(Hendrick, 1980). By 1920, virtually every major teacher training
institution in the country had a campus laboratory school. Often, the

ERIC

CEDER Yearbook 2001
The Evolution of Laboratory Schools

Laboratory schools situated on university and college campuses
were long a staple of institutions that provided training for preservice
teachers. The concept was simple. Bring PreK-12 students on campus,
provide them with an education, and at the same time provide
preservice teachers an opportunity to practice some of the methods
they were learning in their pedagogy classes. These campus lab
schools would also enable faculty and graduate students to experiment
with new educational ideas and methods and to conduct the research
needed to validate those ideas or methods. Furthermore, although
never acknowledged in their mission statements, these campus lab
schools often provided university faculty with a convenient place to
educate their own children. Children from the local community were
also invited to attend, but usually their parents would have to provide
transportation.

The Rise of Lab Schools & Child Development Centers

From 1850 to 1950, laboratory schools thrived. An 1874 report
from the U.S. Commissioner of Education indicated that 47 of the
nation's 67 state normal schools provided laboratory or training
schools in connection with their teacher education programs
(Hendrick, 1980). By 1920, virtually every major teacher training
institution in the country had a campus laboratory school. Often, the

laD schools were small because institutions had limited space and
‘were reluctant to invest a great deal of money in faculties and
facilities for these campus schools. The University of Chicago School
was one of the premier sites. John Dewey started the school and he
was its director from 1896 until 1904. He articulated the purposes of
the laboratory school (Hendrick, 1980, p. 58):

It bears the same relation to the work of pedagogy that a
laboratory bears to biology, physics, or dentistry. Like any
such laboratory it has two main purposes ( 1 ) to exhibit, test,
verify and criticize theoretical statements and principles, and
(2) to add to sum of facts and principles in its special line.

Dewey believed that research was the primary mission of
laboratory schools, and he did not believe that they should serve as
training vehicles for prospective teachers (Provenzo, 1979). Although
Dewey had a deep concern for economically deprived populations, the
University of Chicago lab school had to charge tuition in order to
survive. For the most part, students attending the school came from
very affluent families.

Starting in the 1920s, many universities also began to develop
child development laboratory programs or centers (Osborn, 1991).
These were essentially laboratory schools for very young children.
Like the earlier laboratory schools, these centers also had a three-fold
mission: to serve as a practicum site for training preservice and
inservice teachers in early childhood education and child
development, to serve as a site for research on various aspects of child
development, and to provide model programs in early childhood
education for the national and local educational communities
(McBride, 1996). Some also served as daycare centers for university
students and faculty. Significant research emerged from these child
development centers, including: norms for child development (Gesell
at Yale), intelligence tests (Kuhlman at Minnesota), and studies of
child play (Paten at Minnesota). Ironically, teacher educators
conducted few of these significant studies; nor did they have direct
'application to the early childhood classroom.

' 5

The Fall of Lab Schools & Child Development Centers

After World War II, the number of lab schools in the United
States declined precipitously, and few new lab schools were opened.

A 1964 survey counted 212 lab schools, which declined to 166 by
1973. By the start of the 21 s ' century, John R. Johnson, Executive
Director of the National Association of Laboratory Schools, estimated
that there were about only 100 lab schools in the United States
(personal communication, July 28, 2001).

Some of the same factors that initially contributed to the success
of the lab school concept also contributed to its decline. However, the
reasons for the decline were many (Goodlad, 1980; Hendrick, 1980;
Dishner & Boothby, 1986). Critics maintained that some of the
methods, materials, and philosophies that were so successful in the lab
schools could not thrive outside the rarefied atmosphere of a campus
school. Often, the students were the progeny of university faculty, and
they lived in an atmosphere that actively promoted learning and
school. Many of the non-faculty children came from affluent homes in
which families could fill their shelves with books and could provide
transportation to and from school. In other words, they were serving
an elitist population - not typical of the population at large
(MacNaughton & Johns, 1993; Hayo, 1993). Thus, even faculty in
schools of education began to complain that lab schools were not
providing preservice teachers with authentic field experiences.

John Goodlad (1980), one of the premier educators in the United
States, was director of a laboratory school for 18 years. While at the
University of California, Los Angeles, the site of one of the country's
premier lab schools, he clearly identified four other problems of lab
schools. First was the problem of functions . He identified five major
functions of lab schools: education of the children enrolled,
development of new and innovative practices, research and inquiry,
preservice education, and inservice education. He concluded that two
of those functions, inservice and preservice education, would best be
left to the local schools surrounding universities. These surrounding
schools, or professional development schools, as they came to be
called, would form new partnerships with the university (Goodlad,
1990). Most of the field-based teacher preparation, particularly the .
junior year experience and student teaching, would take place in these
schools. The concept of professional development schools became one
of the cornerstones of the reforms of teacher education proposed in the

CEDER Yearbook 2001

late eighties and early nineties (Goodlad, 1990; Holmes Group, 1990).
Some argued, however, that the laboratory school could also become a
professional development school (Smith, 1991).

The second major problem identified by Goodlad (1980) was one
of differing values . Many of the stakeholders in lab schools have very
differing values. The lab schoolteachers, or clinical faculty, want to
demonstrate teaching expertise, preferably with methods and materials
with which they are comfortable. The inservice teachers visiting the
school want a technique or lesson they can use tomorrow; the
preservice teacher wants a job; university professors want a hassle-
free environment where they can do research; and the director of the
school wants all of those things simultaneously. Because Goodlad
would relegate the preservice and inservice education responsibilities
to surrounding schools, he goes on to note that the conflict between
the university professors and the lab schoolteachers can be a major
concern. He states that each group fails to recognize the strengths of
the other. The university professor has knowledge of research and
specialized content whereas the lab schoolteacher has expertise in
working with groups of children.

The third and fourth problems identified by Goodlad (1980) were
the problem of resources and the problem of external and internal
support . The problem of adequate resources has plagued lab schools
since their inception. Most campus lab schools are small, having no
more than one or two classrooms per grade level. However, when all
schools were required to offer all of the specialized services of the
larger schools (e.g. special education, speech therapists, music,
physical education, teachers of the gifted, nutrition, etc.), lab schools
were particularly hard hit (McConnaha, 1996). Many universities
began to question their financial commitment to lab schools
particularly with the growth of professional development schools.

In summary, Goodlad (1980) stated that unless the professional
faculty are actively involved in doing research with the children and
clinical faculty in the lab schools, and unless the lab schools maintain
a "questioning ambience,” the schools are doomed to failure. The
schools themselves, the professional faculty, and the clinical faculty
must always be receptive to change, experimentation, and research.

Another problem of lab schools only briefly alluded to by
Goodlad (1980) was their failure to disseminate information about the
research and program development being conducted on site. In an
interview, John Haefner (Hepburn, 1995), a prominent social studies

ERIC

CEDER Yearbook 2001

educator and former President of the National Council of Social
Studies, after bemoaning the closing of the University of Iowa lab
school which was known for its innovative curriculum and teaching
methods, supported the proposition that campus laboratory schools ;
had failed in their dissemination mission:

"Why was it closed? We simply did not publish enough about
the high school. We defeated ourselves by not making greater
efforts to get the results out to other educators" (p.454).

The Early Childhood Development Center

The $7.8 million Early Childhood Development Center (ECDC)
on the campus of Texas A&M University-Corpus Christi (TAMUCC)
is one of the few university lab schools to open in the nineties. Like
the lab schools and child development centers of old, this school has
four interrelated missions: to do research, to train teachers, to provide
model programs, and to educate the children attending the school. The
facility was funded by the 73rd Texas Legislature in the 1994-95
Biennial Budget for TAMUCC. The on-campus elementary school
opened in August 1996 and is still in operation. Today, it serves
children age three through grade three. The school opened in 1996
with only four classrooms (age three through grade one). In 1997, the
second-grade classroom was added, and in 1998, the third-grade
classroom was added. The Center was developed through a
collaborative effort between Texas A&M University-Corpus Christi
and the Corpus Christi Independent School District (CCISD). Like
earlier lab schools and child development centers, the ECDC
emphasizes a developmentally appropriate multi-cultural curriculum,
instructional excellence, and team teaching.

However, several major focal points of the ECDC, different from
those historically accepted, are emphasized as well. They include:

• A dual language curriculum.

• Fulltime publicly supported schooling for three- and four-
year-olds.

• A school student population from low-income families,
many of who have English as their second language.

• State-of-the-art technology.

• A heavy emphasis on parent involvement and education.

8 8

u-uuauuiauvc researcn oeiween iao scnooneacners ana L-ouege oi
•Education faculty, often the overlooked mission in lab schools of the
past, is another major emphasis of the ECDC.

The Facility

The two-story facility contains six classrooms for the three-year-
olds through third graders as well as offices for faculty and classrooms
for college students. Each of the six classrooms for children has a
collapsible wall, which can be opened for large multi-age groupings or
closed for single class instruction and activities. In addition, each
classroom has approximately eleven computers. On the second floor,
above each classroom, there is an observation deck with one-way
glass and auditory capability. This provides university students with
opportunities to observe unobtrusively the young children below in
their classroom setting. The ECDC also houses the Center for
Educational Development, Evaluation and Research (CEDER), the
research and development center for the College of Education. In
general, the professional faculty members housed at the ECDC are
committed to involving their students and themselves with research in
the center.

School Population

The student population in the Early Childhood Development
Center is selected from the Corpus Christi Independent School
District, and selection criteria are based upon demographics of that
district. Guidelines for the composition of the ECDC school
population are in accordance with recommendations of the
Consultative Group on Early Childhood Care and Development, an
interagency group dedicated to improving the condition of young
children at risk (Evans & Meyers, 1994). The school population
includes approximately 132 children: 63% of the children qualify for
free or reduced lunch, 50% of the children come from Spanish-
dominant families, and 50% from English-dominant homes. Thus,
there are four groups from which stratified selections are made. Fifty
percent (11) of the children come from Spanish-dominant homes; of
those, sixty-three percent come from low-income homes
(approximately 7), and thirty-seven percent come from non-low
income families (approximately 4). The same percentages apply to the

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

children from English-dominant homes, the local sciiooi district
conducts a lottery during the month of April from which the 22 three-
year-old children for the three-year-old classroom are selected. It is
hoped that these three-year-olds will continue at the ECDC through
third grade. However, if students drop out or transfer, they are
replaced with other children from the original pool. (See Chapter 2 for
a detailed discussion of selection procedures.) Thus the school
population of the ECDC is, for the most part, representative of the
population of South Texas. Unlike many of the lab school populations
of the past, the children are not, for the most part, the progeny of
affluent well-educated parents.

Faculty

The clinical faculty for the six classrooms in the ECDC are
master teachers, all employed by the school district. A part-time
itinerant special education teacher also serves the children and is
employed by the school district. Because the intent was to make the
ECDC concept reproducible in other schools, not all the faculty are
bilingual. For the first five years of its operation, two of the clinical
faculty were not bilingual. Because fifty percent of the instruction for
all children was to be in Spanish, this necessitated team teaching.
Turnover of the clinical faculty, although not encouraged, is not
discouraged. At the start of 2001, three of the original clinical faculty
remain, but two of those have switched grade levels.

In choosing the clinical faculty for the ECDC, particular concern
was directed toward the selection of the teachers of the three- and
four-year-olds. These teachers were and are an integral part of the
school and, as such, were to have impeccable academic credentials.
The original teacher of the three-year-olds had her doctorate in earl:
childhood education and, at the time, was one of the few Texas
teachers certified by the National Board for Professional Teaching
Standards. The present teacher of three-year-olds has a master’s
degree in early childhood education with many graduate hours in the
teaching of reading. The teacher for the four-year-old classroom has a
doctorate in bilingual education and has published several articles in
that field.

In 2001, a new position was added to the ECDC - a part-time
research liaison. His position is to work with the clinical faculty and

4 )

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

CEDER Yearbook 2001

the professional faculty to ensure that the research agreed upon is
carried out in the most efficient manner.

ECDC Principal/Director

The roles of the principal and the director of the ECDC have been
evolving constantly. In the year prior to the opening of the laboratory
school (1995-96), a fulltime director was hired to oversee the
planning. He continued in that role during the first year of the ECDC’s
operation, and his entire salary was paid by the University. In 1997,
the role of the director was changed to a half-time position and
remained that way for the next three years; however, during the same
period, the position was elevated to the rank of assistant dean. Starting
in 1996, (the first year in which children attended) and for the first
three years of it’s the school’s operation, a principal, who was a
doctoral student in the University's educational leadership program,
was added to the roster of ECDC staff. The principal/doctoral
student's stipend was again paid by the university. In 1999, the school
district assumed responsibility for the salary of the principal although
the university supplemented that salary for additional responsibilities
related to the university. In the fall of 2001, the principal's and
director's positions were combined. Again the principal's salary is paid
by the school district while the university continues to provide an
additional supplement for university-related responsibilities. The
principal/director of the laboratory school functions as a department
chair within the College of Education together with the six other
departments: counseling, curriculum & instruction, educational
administration & research, kinesiology, special services, and teacher
education. The faculty members in the ECDC Department consist of
the teachers in the laboratory school - the clinical faculty.

best copy available

CEDER Yearbook 2001

Center Curriculum

The original curriculum for the ECDC was written during the fall
of 1995 by a cadre of CJCISD teachers and the early childhood
education faculty from TAMUCC. However, changes in curriculum
for the Corpus Christi Independent School District have also
influenced the curriculum at the ECDC. That curriculum has as its
focus dual language instruction, and that instruction begins with the
three-year-olds. The hope is that the children from the Spanish-
dominant homes will learn English, and the children from the English-
dominant homes will leam Spanish. About 50% of the instructional
time is devoted to each language. (See Chapter 2.) Although dual
language facility is particularly important in South Texas, a recent
headline in USA Today proclaimed "Si usted no habla espanol puede
quedarse rezagado” (If you don't speak Spanish, you might be left
behind") (Sharp, 2001). The article went on to state that everyone
from feedlot managers in Nebraska to stockbrokers in New York are
realizing the importance of speaking Spanish.

In addition to the focus on dual language instruction, the
curriculum at the ECDC includes the use of age appropriate multi-
age/cross grade groupings, and team teaching. Each room has
approximately eleven computers, so children are introduced to
technology at a very young age. A technology curriculum for very
young children has been developed by faculty and graduate students
in educational technology. (See Chapter 12.)

Health Center

The nursing program on the campus of TAMUCC has a health
care facility in the ECDC building to train school nursing students.
Students in the nursing program are required to do a clinical rotation
through the facility to work with the children. Thus, the children
enrolled at the ECDC receive quality preventive health care within the
school environment, and the nursing students receive valuable
practicum experiences through their interaction with young children.
The presence of the Health Center also guarantees that another college
within the university also has a vested interest in the laboratory
school. (See Chapter 13.)

'12 12

Counseling Center

Also located in the ECDC building are counseling faculty and
graduate students. The graduate students gain experience working
with the ECDC children and their families. Faculty in the Department
of Counseling have developed an active research agenda, much of it
based on their work with the ECDC children and teachers. The school,
in turn, receives free counseling for its students and families. (See
chapter 14.)

T raining Mission

Because the ECDC is on the campus, various groups of
undergraduate and graduate students are able to observe and interact
with young children. The early childhood majors probably make the
most use of the ECDC for observation and practicum experiences
because the early childhood classes are taught on site and all early
childhood faculty are housed there. Early childhood students have a
chance to observe and practice various developmentally appropriate
strategies and techniques as well as to examine age appropriate
materials. Graduate students in the school; counseling program have
opportunities to interact not only with the young children but also with
their families. In addition, both graduate and undergraduate students
in various curriculum areas and in school nursing have an opportunity
to interact with children and teachers in the center.

Results

At the close of its fifth year of operation and with the arrival of a
new dean of the College of Education, the clinical and professional
faculty had an opportunity to reexamine the results of this five year
multi-million dollar experiment. Are the children in the ECDC
learning? Would some of the problems faced by past laboratory
schools be solved? Could the work done at the ECDC make a
contribution to the educational knowledge base? Could this preschool
dual language model be replicated in a neighborhood public school?

13 13

Quantitative Results

One of the great concerns of everyone associated with the
development of the ECDC was the emphasis on high stakes testing in
Texas. All public schools in Texas are required to administer the
Texas Assessment of Academic Skills (TAAS) on an annual basis.
The TAAS consists of criterion-referenced tests in reading,
mathematics, and writing. The TAAS reading and mathematics tests
are administered to all eligible public school students in grades three
through eight and ten. The writing test is administered only at grades
four, eight, and ten (Texas Education Agency, 2001).

The TAAS test is designed to measure a list of standards called
the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS). The TEKS were
developed by the Texas Education Agency (TEA) to provide public
school districts with guidelines for a state-required foundation
curriculum. Schools receive a rating of "exemplary," "recognized,"
"acceptable," or "low performing" on the basis of TAAS results and
attendance rates. In order for a school to receive an exemplary rating,
at least 90% of the students must receive a passing score on the
TAAS. In order to pass the test, students must achieve a standard
score of 70, which is roughly equivalent to answering correctly 70%
of the items (TEA, 2001b).

Thus, the ECDC, which is a public school in the Corpus Christi
Independent School District, was required to give this test in 1999, at
the end of its third year of operation, and the year the first group of
students completed third grade. Unlike most other lab school
populations, most of these children did not come from homes where
stellar results were the norm. Furthermore, half of the instruction for
these children was in Spanish, and the TAAS was in English. Would
the ECDC children be able to pass the dreaded test? Professional and
clinical faculty hoped the school would be exempt because of its
experimental nature. Unfortunately, no such exemptions were
available.

When the 1999 results came in, all students had passed the
reading portion of the TAAS and most had passed the mathematics
section (TEA, 1999). The school was rated "recognized." A banner
was hoisted in the school lobby and everyone breathed a sigh of relief.
In 2000, the TAAS results came in, and the ECDC was rated
"exemplary” (TEA, 2000). Jubilation! 2001 - “exemplary” again!
More jubilation (TEA, 2001a)! ! !

CEDER Yearbook 2001

Replication

One measure of the validity of any program developed in a lab
school setting is successful replication in a regular public school. In
January 2001, the Zavala Special Emphasis School in the Corpus
Christi Independent School District began a fulltime publicly
supported preschool for three- and four-year-olds modeled after the
ECDC and supported by a congressional grant. Like the ECDC, dual
language acquisition is a major point of the curriculum. Also, like the
ECDC, not all the teachers are bilingual; one is bilingual, and one
speaks only English. As in the ECDC, this situation necessitates team
teaching. Both of the new Zavala teachers are recent graduates of
Texas A&M University-Corpus Christi’ s elementary and bilingual
education programs. For the most part, the student population of the
Zavala Special Emphasis School comes from one of the lowest socio-
economic areas of Corpus Christi. (See Chapter 3.)

Overcoming Problems

In 1980, Goodlad succinctly identified numerous problems of lab
schools. The first was the many different functions expected of lab
schools: education of children, preservice education, inservice
education research, and program development. The ECDC has all of
those functions, but research and program development have become
priorities, along with the education of the children. The professional
development schools in the surrounding area have become the major
venues for student teaching and other field-based experiences; these
experiences have become of secondary importance at the ECDC.

The fact that the clinical faculty and the principal are employed
by the local school district alleviates another of the major problems of
older lab schools— the problem of resources. No longer is the lab
school a drain on the resources of the university or the college of
education. Also, the Early Childhood Development Center is
addressing two educational problems that have been identified as
priorities for the 21 s1 century. Specifically, those problems are Spanish
language acquisition (Sharp, 2001) and preschool literacy and learning
(Cassidy & Cassidy, 2000/2001; McQuillan, 2001). In fact, because of
this unique focus, the ECDC has been able to garnish over a million
dollars in external grants. Also, because other colleges and faculty

15 15

CEDER Yearbook 2001

within the University are involved in the ECDC, there is a broad-
based support for this facility.

Another problem of past university laboratory schools has been
the failure to disseminate"the findings of their research and program
development. Although some studies based at the Early Childhood
Education Center have been published (Montague & Meza-Zaragosa,
1999), the publication and distribution of the CEDER Yearbook, Earl y
Childhood Literacy: Programs & Strate g ies to Develop Cultura l,
linguistic. Scientific and Healthcare Literacy for Very Youhg
Children & Their Families (Cassidy & Garrett, 2001) should provide a
unified compendium of research and innovative programming for
individuals interested in laboratory schools, dual language acquisition
and preschool instruction.

Some Observational Comments

Over thirty years ago William Van Til (1969), a distinguished
educator, laboratory advocate and writer, delivered a speech about
laboratory schools at the annual conference for the American
Association for Colleges of Teacher Education (AACTE). The speech
was later published and widely quoted. Somewhat tongue in cheek, he
painted a picture of what a campus laboratory school should be:

Within a shining new building on the campus at an
institution of higher learning, children and youth who were
representative of the American population would
experience the finest possible education. Their learning
experiences would be derived from the application of the
tested best already established, and from experimentation
with the newest and most venturesome approaches to
education.

The laboratory school facility would be made up of
master teachers demonstrating their skills in the art and
science of teaching, carrying forward research and
experimentation with children and youth, and adroitly
inducting observers, participants, and student teachers into
the best of all possible educational theory and practice.
Their partners in the school would be the college and
university professors. The professors would artfully
interweave their classroom instruction with extensive

ERjt

observation, participation, and student teaching in the
demonstration school by teachers-to-be. The professors
also would share in the development of significant research
with the experimental school faculty.

To this center of educational enlightenment would
journey educators from far and near to observe the best in
education. They would then return to their schools to put
new ideas into practice , thus raising the level of American
education. The laboratory school would be the pride of the
college and university administration, the joy of parents
fortunate enough to have young people enrolled therein,
and the darling of state legislators, boards of trustees, and
philanthropists.

To a large extent, the Early Childhood Development Center at
Texas A&M University-Corpus Christi fulfills Van Til's dream of the
last century. True, there are still university professors who grumble
about the attention devoted to the campus school; the lab school
teachers complain that more is expected of them than their
counterparts in public schools; the administration occasionally sees
the ECDC as just another of the myriad problems which must be
addressed; and there are occasional curriculum conflicts between the
School District and the University. But.... the facility is "a shining
new building on the campus of an institution of higher learning" and
the student body is "representative of the American population" of
South Texas. The dual language curriculum and the fulltime publicly
supported program for three- and four-year-olds represent
"experimentation with the newest and most venturesome approaches
to education." VanTil's statement that "the laboratory school would
besThe pride of the college and university administration" is brought to
life each" semester by the President of Texas A&M University-Corpus
Christi when he proudly cites the ECDC in his opening remarks to
faculty. To some extent, the laboratory school has also become "the
darling of state legislators, boards of trustees and philanthropists"
because they realize that the school is willing to address some of the
problems facing public education in the 21 s ' century (1969)

The Future

The problems encountered by the older university lab schools as
they en t “-“ rl ,aRt ha,f of the twentieth century have, to some

extent, been addressed
Development Center on

campus.

campus, uuuuuutuuij, v

ones will arise. It is the hope of all \
this unique facility will continue to
and demands of a changing society.

17 I?

CEDER Yearbook 2001

References

Cassidy, J., & Cassidy, D. (2000/2001). What’s hot, what's not for
2001. Reading Today, 18(3), 1,18.

Cassidy, J., & Garrett, S.D. (Eds.) (in progress). Early Childhood
Literacy: Programs & Strategies to Develop Cultural,
Linguistic, Scientific and Healthcare Literacy for Very Young
Children & Their Families. Unpublished manuscript, Texas
A&M University- Corpus Christi.

Dishner E. K., & Boothby, P.R. (1986). A bold "old" step: return to
laboratory schools. New Directions for Teaching & Learning.
San Francisco, CA: Josey-Bass.

Evans, J., & Meyers, R.G. (1994, Winter). A call to action: Improving
the situation of children worldwide. HighlScope ReSource, 1-
8 .

Goodlad, J.I. (1980). How laboratory schools go awry. UCLA
Educator, 21(2), 62-73.

Goodlad, J.I. (1990). Tomorrow's schools: Principles for the design of
professional development schools. San Francisco, CA: Josey-
Bass.

Hayo, M. (1993). Clinical education and the role of attached schools
in preservice teacher education. Peabody Journal of
Education, 68, 53-57.

Hendrick, I. G. (1980) University controlled laboratory schools in
historical perspective. UCLA Educator, 21(2), 54-60.

Hepburn, M. (1995). Interview with Dr. John Haefner. Social
Education, 59, 451-454.

Holmes Group. (1990). Tomorrow’s schools: Principles for the design
of professional development schools 1990. East Lansing, MI:
Michigan State University, Holmes Partnership.

MacNaughton, R. H. & Johns, F. (1993). The professional

development school: An emerging model. Contemporary
Education, 64, 215-218.

McBride, B. (1996). University-based child development laboratory
programs: Emerging issues and challenges. Early Childhood
Education Journal, 24, 17 -21.

McConnaha, W. (1996). The laboratory schools in the year 2000.
Paper presented at the Northeastern Regional Conference of
the National Association of Laboratory Schools.

CEDER Yearbook 2001

McQuillan, L. (2001, July 26). First lady to promote learning before
age 5. USA Today, pp. 8A.

Montague, N. & Meza-Zaragosa (1999). Elicited response in the pre-
kindergarten setting with a dual language program: Good or
bad idea. Bilingual Research Journal, 23 1 289-296.

Osborn, D.K. (1991). Early childhood education in historical

perspective (3 rd ed.). Athens, GA: Education Associates.

Provenzo, E. (1979). History as experiment: The role of the laboratory
school in the development of John Dewey's philosophy of
history. History Teacher, 12, 373-382.

Sharp, D. (2001, May 9). Si usted no habla espanol puede quedarse
rezagado (If you don't speak Spanish, you might be left
behind); Spanish study booms in USA. USA Today, pp. 1-2.

Smith, Charles W. (1991). Laboratory/professional development
schools: Are they, can they be, one and the same? National
Association of Laboratory Schools Journal, 16, 8-17.

Texas Education Agency. (1999). Texas Student Assessment Program:
Student performance results 1997-1998. Austin, TX: Author.

Texas Education Agency. (2000). Texas Student Assessment Program:
Student performance results 1998-1999. Austin, TX: Author.

Texas Education Agency. (2001a). Texas Student Assessment

Program: Student performance results 1999-2000. Austin,

TX: Author.

Texas Education Agency. (2001b). Student assessment division.

Retrieved November 5, 2001, from Texas Education Agency
Web site: http://www.tea.state.tx.us/student.assessment .

Van Til, W. (1969). The laboratory school: Its rise and fall? Terre
Haute, IN: Indiana State University and Laboratory Schools
Administrators Association.

US. Department of Education

Office of Educational Research and improvement ( OERf)
National Library of Education (NLE)
Educational Resources information Center (ERIC)

REPRODUCTION RELEASE

^ (Specific Documept^ £^/Ljo/

L DOCUMENT IDENTIFICATION:

~ ftoOffMS f Sir&-^i-rs 4o t^i/eiof C^W a h Scienrflfi

Early floiidbood ^lihCnre Lt Witty for \jgr)rVbM^Ch(Mren 0ki£ Fam c f I ~

Authoits): CQfSSijyjTacK ar\d Cn<xrfW4 ■ Sherrye C&W)

Corporate Source: C W EduC<fh^H| Pev/clof^^, UdWTton %

l<?s

Research {jCEP££\ Trias, Af MUm^ly-gor^^

Publication Date:

Apn 1 2ooZ

II. REPRODUCTION RELEASE:

In order to disseminate as widely as possible timely and significant materials of interest to the educational community, documents announced in the
monthly abstract Journal of the ERIC system, Resources in Education (RIE), are usually made available to users in microfiche, reproduced paper copy, and
electronic media, and sold through the ERIC Document Reproduction Service (EDRS). Credit is given to the source of each document, and, if reproduction
release is granted, one of-the following notices is affixed to the document.

If permission is granted to reproduce and disseminate the identified document, please CHECK ONE of the following three options and sign at the bottom
of the page.

The sample sticker shown below wfB be
affixed to afl Level 1 documents

Level 1

The sample sticker shown below wil be
affixed to a3 Le^l 2A documents

The sample sticker shown below vrtJ be
affixed to all Level 2B document

PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE AND
DISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL HAS
BEEN GRANTED BY

PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE AND
DISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL IN
MICROFICHE, AND IN ELECTRONIC MEDIA
FOR ERIC COLLECTION SUBSCRIBERS ONLY,
HAS BEEN GRANTED BY

PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE AND
DISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL IN
MICROFICHE ONLY HAS BEEN GRANTED BY

TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES
INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)

Check here tor Level 1 release, permitting reproduction and
cfcaemlnattan in microfiche or other ERIC archival media
(e.g., electronic) an/paper copy.

Level 2A

□

Check here for Level 2A release, permitting rep r oduction and
cfeseminatton in m fc mflche and h electronic mexfla for BRIG
archival coflection subscribers only

Level »

□

Check here tor Love! 2B release, permitting reproduction and
dissemination In microfiche only

Documents wta be processed as bxficated provided reproduction quality perm 8a
if perm is si o n to reproduce b granted, but no box is checked, documents wB be processed at Level 1.

/ hereby grant to the Educational Resources information Center (ER/C) nonexclusive permission to reproduce and disseminate this document as
indicated above. Reproduction from the ERIC microfiche or electronic media by persons other than ERIC employees and its system contractors
requires permission from the copyright holder ; Exception is made for non-profit reproduction by libraries and other service agencies to satisfy
infonpelion needs of efhjcators in response to discrete inquiries.

Sign

iters.

S '7 &iro W ^

Printed NarrerfPosafonflTti^: i k .

p/ease

0300 CCtan Q f\V€

Te T^')$25"5Ui

Ttv'l

corpus Cnri d-i ."ft l€*l 12.

rEAtafl Address: 6

°"Auq W7S&

ERIC

JCassldy - -Wvuct - ftC

III. DOCUMENT AVAILABILITY INFORMATION (FROM NON-ERIC SOURCE):

If permission to reproduce is not granted to ERIC, or, if you wish ERIC to cite the availability of the document from another source please
provide the following information regarding the availability of the document. (ERIC will not announce a document unless it is publicly
availabfo, and a dependable source can be specified. Contributors should also be aware that ERIC selection criteria are significantly
more stringent for documents that cannot be made available through EDRS.)

Publisher/Distributor C-* £ * " — “

Address: (j~£>OD OOdCXf) C^T I \fC

EcXrly Chi id hood ucv^lop^&ih C&her
Corpus Chrishi, Texas 70 W 2 -

Ifio&o '

IV. REFERRAL OF ERIC TO COPYRIGHT/REPRODUCTION RIGHTS HOLDER:

If the right to grant this reproduction release is held by someone other than the addressee, please provide the appropriate name and

V. WHERE TO SEND THIS FORM:

Send this form to the following ERIC Clearinghouse:

Karen E. Smith, Acquisitions
ERC/EECE, University of flihois
Children’s Research Center
51 Gerty Drive
Champaign, IL 61820

However, if solicited by the ERIC Facility, or if making an unsolicited contribution to ERIC
contributed) to:

return this form (and the document being

ERIC Processing and Reference Facility

4483-A Forbes Boulevard

Lanham, Maryland 20706

Telephone: 301-552-4200

Toll Free: 800-799-3742

FAX: 301-552-4700

ema '* : info@ericfac.piccard.csc.com

WWW: http://ericfacility.orq

Internet Archive Audio

Featured

Top

Images

Featured

Top

Software

Featured

Top

Texts

Featured

Top

Video

Featured

Top

Mobile Apps

Browser Extensions

Archive-It Subscription

Save Page Now

Full text of "ERIC ED468858: A University Lab School for the 21st Century: The Early Childhood Development Center."

See other formats